Wednesday, July 31, 2013

So I wanted to try
something different. I have a simple
method when it comes to writing reviews for this blog: I watch a film, I take
notes on it, and then I write a review.
Normally, when I review a film for this blog, I watch it only once. My reasoning is because sometimes I get
easily bored watching a film more than once, but it’s mainly because I watch a
lot of crap. I know a lot of critics
watch a film at least twice before forming an opinion, to give a more “fair
judgment” of the film. Now, in attempt
to do some of those film’s some “justice”, I will be re-watching some of them
writing a retrospect review on how my feelings have changed since I watched
them the one and only time. The first
film I will be re-reviewing is Lars Von Trier’s 2009 film “Antichrist”.

My First Impression of the Film

What was the point of you Random Talking Fox???

I absolutely hated this film the first time I
saw it. It actually took me over a year
to watch the entire film in just one sitting, I found it that boring. I hated this film so much after the first
time I saw it that I declared it “the Worst Film I’ve ever seen” (only for me
to recant that declaration one week later after watching and reviewing “Cool
World”). I have bashed this film to no
end. I ranked it #2 on my list of “Ten
Films that make me want to punch somebody”, and I listed this film’s director,
Lars Von Trier, as one of my “5 Signs of a Bad Movie”. I just could not find one thing about this
film that I liked.

My Opinion after watching this film for the second
time

I dotn even know how to describe this scene

So shortly after I
posted my original review of “Antichrist”, one of my best friends told me that
they wanted to watch the film with me because they thought it might actually be
good. I decided to humor them and we
watched it. They agreed that it was
nothing special, but thought it was better than I gave it credit for, and I
actually started to see that the film did have some nice cinematography. Though, I still couldn’t get pass the fact
that Charlotte Gainsbourg is a terrible actress—probably one of the worst I’ve
ever seen in a film—and there’s just so much random and boring crap that Von
Trier piles into his films that make me regret watching anything that he’s
made.

God, you're a weirdo!

Now
this next part is very difficult for me to admit, but maybe...Lars Von Trier
isn’t as bad as of a director as I thought.
I guess what I’m trying to express is that even though I don’t
understand or like a lot of the things Von Trier does in his films, I think
that might be why so many people like him.
He does as he pleases and he does it all in the name of his art.
He makes the kind of films that he wants to make, and he is proud of his
work. Also, he keeps landing big name
stars in most of his films. Everyone
from Willem Defoe and Kirsten Dunst to Kiefer Sutherland and Stellan Skasgaard has
appeared in Von Trier’s films. Even one
of my favorite actors, John Hurt, managed to find himself playing a role in Von
Trier’s “Melancholia”. I don’t
understand how Von Trier keeps landing so many big name stars for his films,
but if he can do it, then people must really like his work.

What I’d do to make this film better

Well...can this film
be made better? How can you improve upon Von Trier’s work? Did this film actually have a plot? I couldn’t tell. Well if it didn’t have a plot then what can
you really do to make the film better? I
mean besides the obvious: replace Charlotte Gainsbourg with a better actress
and STOP SHOWING US CLOSE-UPS WILLEM
DEFOE’S PENIS!

My Present Feelings on the Film

So do I still think
“Antichrist” is one of the worst films I’ve ever seen? Yes. However, I don’t think I would rank it
as high up on my list of Worst Films I’ve ever seen, but I’d definitely say
it’s somewhere in my Top 20 Worst Films (possibly top 15). If you, personally, like this film I can
understand it. I’ve seen it three times
now, and it’s just not my cup of tea.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Show business is often considered a business made up
of various forms of smoke and mirrors designed to attract
audiences. One of Hollywood’s favorite tricks is creating the illusion of
something new out of something that has already been made. This mirage is
achieved through a variety of methods, the most popular of which are sequels
and remakes. While some sequels and remakes manage to improve upon their original
source material, many others unfortunately pale in comparison to their
predecessors. The Haunting, is one of
the films that falls into the latter category yet still manages to be enjoyable,
albeit unintentionally.

The
Haunting follows the same premise as its two previous
incarnations made in 1959 and 1966; a group of strangers are brought to the
reportedly haunted Hill House as part of a clinical study. In the first two
films, the doctor informs the other characters that he is conducting a study on
the existence of ESP and haunted houses. In the 1999 version, however, Doctor
Marrow (Liam Neeson) conceals his true purpose by misleading his subjects into
believing that they have been chosen to study, and hopefully cure, their various
sleep disturbances. While this change is small, it greatly affects the audience's
and later the characters’ view of the doctor. The cast is made up of the doctor’s
assistants (Alix Koromzay and Todd Field), the groundskeepers (Bruce Dern and
Marian Seldes), and the three study subjects. The characters are all flatly
written with the need to move the script to the next plot point often acting as
their chief motivation. The assistants and groundskeepers are particularly
expendable, and are fortunately restricted to minimal screen time. The study
subjects consist of cynical everyman Luke (Owen
Wilson), bohemian artist Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and sheltered loner Eleanor
(Lili Taylor).

Nothing says 'home' like dead-eyed children

After the usual spooky welcome form the groundskeepers,
Doctor Marrow begins the excursion by telling the group about the legend of
Hill House, which at first glance reads more like a child’s fairy tale than a
horror story. According to the story, benevolent millionaire Hugh Crane married
a beautiful local girl, who later grew despondent when she was unable to have
children. The legend goes on to explain that Crane built the house as a
monument to the children he and his wife could never have. Before Marrow can finish
the story, however, one of his assistants is wounded by a piano wire that snaps
off of an old piano and cuts across her face. Both assistants leave in fear,
leaving the doctor alone with his subjects…or so he thinks. Before long,
strange things start occurring in the house that border on the supernatural.
The guests’ anxiety is only increased when the doctor reveals the true story of
Crane’s past as the brutal owner of a sweatshop in which hundreds of children
were worked to death and later buried underneath Hill House.
Eleanor is visited by ghosts of the dead children who beg her to help them escape from
the mysterious force that still terrorizes them. Despite the many strange
events in the house, the doctor and subjects do their best to find logical
explanations, including the possibility that Eleanor is behind the supposed haunting. The
accusations of the others add to Eleanor’s already unstable state and prompt
her to dig further into the house’s past in order to exonerate herself. This of
course leads the evil spirits in the house to retaliate against Eleanor and the
other guests in special effects laden scenes that are more amusing than
frightening. A personal revelation ultimately forces Eleanor to confront her internal
demons in order to destroy the external ones plaguing the house.

One of the most interesting aspects of The Haunting is the way in which it
places an A-list cast in a B-rate plot. Although all of the primary cast
members would go on to star in commercial and critical successes, the best that they
can manage with the film’s script are adequate performances. Oscar winner Zeta-Jones’
role is restricted to that of an art school stereotype who attempts to shock
the other guests by repeatedly mentioning her bisexuality to the point of
redundancy. Similarly, Owen Wilson is a long way from his successful turns in
such films as Wedding Crashers and Midnight in Paris, as he spends most of the film
meandering along the house’s hallways, nervously putting his hands in his
pockets while declaring that he’s not afraid of ghosts. Neeson attempts to add
a level of pathos to his ethically challenged psychiatrist, but can only do so much
with lines like “We should have stopped this when Mary got hurt, and definitely
when Eleanor did”. Taylor perhaps has
the most difficult of the roles to work with as her character repeatedly acts
in ways that defy logic, despite the fact that she is supposed to be the
relatable center of the film. As a result, the film is filled with credible
performances of a cast of stock characters.

The film’s combination of early CGI effects and
cliched script make for an experience that is more fun house than haunted
house. Throughout the film, the guests comment on the plethora of statues and
carvings of children in the house, which are truly eerie. The unsettling effect
of the images is quickly diminished, however, when cartoonish CGI ghosts start
flowing out of them. Similarly, the creaks and bumps in the night requisite of
any haunted house film are unable to provoke the necessary fear of the unknown
because they are constantly trumped by the visible presence of laughably
exaggerated menaces. CGI images of the walls of the house morphing into various
shapes and the chimney flu’s attack on one character are particularly side
splitting. Eleanor’s final revelation and the climax confrontation in which she
scolds the house demon into submission add the final layer of unintentional
comedy to the film’s already ridiculous base.

﻿

Wakey, wakey!

While The
Haunting does have a talented cast and Hollywood budget to its credit, the
film is unable to reach the lofty goals that it sets for itself. As a result,
the film is at its best when viewed as a parody rather than as a horror
film. When viewed in this fashion, the film’s inane dialogue and awkward
effects help elevate its comic impact rather than hamper
its potential for fright. Although I would not recommend it for true horror
fans or those looking for genuine scares, The Haunting would be ideal for a
gathering of friends looking for a good laugh at a mediocre film’s expense.

Confessions of a Film Junkie: “Classics” A review of “The Black
Klansman”

By: Brian Cotnoir

Just keep in mind that someone thoughtthat this was a good idea for an actual film.

What. The.
Frick?! Did I read the title of
this film correctly? The Black Klansman? The BLACK
Klansman! All right, I hope you’re all
as intrigued as I was when I first read the title of this film and watched it
for the first time. So the 1966 blaxploitation (which was also released under the title “I Crossed
the Color Line”) is the story of a black musician living in LA, named Jerry
Elsworth, who gets a call from his hometown in the Deep South, and is told that
his young daughter (from a previous relationship) was set on fire and killed in
an attack by the Ku Klux Klan.Jerry is
distraught over the death of his daughter and vows to get his vengeance.Jerry is black, but he is a very light
skinned black and figures that with a little make up, a wig, and a fake ID he
can pose as a white man and infiltrate the KKK and get his revenge.

Is it a white or is it a blackit's Pat...I mean Jerry.

That
has got to be one of the most ridiculous plots to a film I have ever seen.There are a lot of issues in this film—both
good and bad—that I must address.First
of all, if I was a black man, the last thing I’m going to do is go anywhere
near the KKK; I can’t tell if Jerry is supposed to be brave or just plain
crazy?The actor who plays Jerry, is
named Richard Gilden, and he is very light-skinned, so it makes some sense that he could pass for a white man, but I couldn’t
help but wonder throughout the film if he was just a light-skinned black man or
if he was actually white?I honestly
could not tell.I’ve tried to find
pictures of him on-line, but all pictures I find of him are in black and white
(ba dum ching!).So I don’t know if he
actually is a black actor or if he was just playing a black actor.

How about a little emotion there, Richard?

Richard Gilden is a very montone actor in this film.He rarely breaks from his mildly-disgruntled-customer-waiting-in-the-checkout-line
tone of voice.Seriously, when he first
gets the news that his daughter was killed by the Klan, he talks about it like
his car was just towed.He doesn’t show
any emotion until his white girlfriend says something to him, and then he
proceeds to choke her because she’s a “white woman”.Oh, and you can also tell how old this film
really is because Jerry managed to sneak a loaded
handgun in his luggage on the plane.You know with all the craziness and gun violence around the world today,
I just found that part to be very funny.

As
a person with a B.A. in History, I can appreciate the historical significance
of this film.It was made in 1966, at
the height of the American Civil Rights movement, and this film did show a
fairly accurate reflection of how life was at that time, and showed a lot of
“radical” and different ideas.Jerry was
a black man who is in a relationship with a white woman, only two years before
this film was made, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that no state could ban or make interracial
marriage illegal.Not only is Jerry
dating a white woman, but he attacked her in a fit of rage.Those are some radical political statements
this film was making for its time.

Well that's just rude.

I
also really like the scenes early on in the film that take place in the Deep
South that show how so many people were resistant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s
rulings that no state could have segregated, or “separate, but equal”, sections
in diners, bus stations, public schools.There’s a scene where the black minster’s younger brother shows him a
newspaper clipping saying that the courts say whites can’t discriminate against
blacks anymore, and the minister tells his naïve younger brother that those
words don’t mean crap, and that the white people in town aren’t going to change
any time soon and welcome him with open arms in town.He ignores the warnings from his older
brother and goes into a diner and orders a cup of coffee, which he does not
receive, and that night he is killed by the Klan for going into their
diner.There’s another part in the film
I like, where the black residents of the town are having a mass at their place
of worship, and you can hear the Klan outside making a raucous and shouting
threats at the people, but they just ignore their words and only sing louder as
an attempt to drown at the Klan’s hate speech.

I also like how Jerry
had to work to get into the
Klan.He goes to office of the Klan’s
leader in town, Mr. Rourk, and says that he is an architect named John Ashley
from Los Angles who wants help staring up a Klan in California.Mr. Rourk initially denies having anything to
do with the Klan and insists to Mr. Ashley, that he has the wrong person.Jerry’s persistence eventually pays off, Mr.
Rourk and the other Klan members believe him to be sincere.It’s at this point Jerry learns about the
Klan really operates, and he ends up getting more details on the attack the
night his daughter was killed, so he can figure out which member is the one
responsible for her death.

Alternative Film Poster

There’s
one more part of the film I want to talk about, just because I thought it was
an interesting twist to the plot.The
black Minister hires a group of thugs from Harlem to come down and help them
with their cause.The thug’s ideas for
the blacks in town are pretty basic.Arm
them and attack the Klan.The thugs go
to a rally and open fire on the Klan, but that only leads to more violence
against the blacks in town, and then they realize they have to cut their ties
from the Harlem gangsters, but now it appears that the gangsters are here to
stay.

I would say that this
movie is definitely a 2 ½ out of 4 stars.It has a lot of interesting points to its plot that could make for some
interesting retrospective discussions on the Civil Rights movement of the
1960’s, among other things.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Nazis, compromised morals, hypocrisy, and black
market racketeering; these are not elements typically found in Hollywood
comedies. For director Billy Wilder, however, the chaos of post-war Europe was
the perfect backdrop for his biting satire,
A Foreign Affair. With the help of a subversively witty script and a cast
talented enough to bring it to life, Wilder took the supposedly safe romantic
comedy genre and turned it on its head. The resulting battle of the wits and
quips between Golden Age leading ladies Marlene Dietrich and Jean Arthur made A Foreign Affair one of Wilder’s most
inventive, if also underrated, films.

The story starts as Jean Arthur’s Congresswoman
Phoebe Frost arrives in Berlin to report on the progress that allied forces
have made in occupied territory. She soon finds herself charmed by GI and
fellow Iowan Captain John Pringle (John Lund) who is, unbeknownst to her, merely humoring her for propriety's sake. After seeing numerous American
soldiers fraternizing with locals, she soon realizes that all is not as rosy as
the local officials would have her believe. In an effort to investigate the
soldiers' ‘shocking’ behavior, she poses as a Berliner and accompanies several
soldiers to a seedy nightclub. At the club, she is horrified to see the men
crowding around sultry singer Erika von Schlutow (Marlene Dietrich), who rumor
has it is the former mistress of a top SS officer. Outraged, Phoebe determines
to expose the soldiers’ antics and, more importantly, Erika’s fascist history.
Unfortunately for Phoebe, however, she enlists Pringle’s help in her crusade
without realizing that he is not only guilty of the fraternizing she is trying
to stop, but is also the latest in Erika’s long list of allied amours. In an
effort to sidetrack the stuffy congresswoman’s investigation Pringle pretends
to be infatuated her, all the while doing his best to hide Erika’s tainted past.
Eventually, the usual romantic comedy tropes come into play as Phoebe finds
herself softening after a little fraternizing of her own with Pringle, and
Erika proves that she still has a few tricks up her sleeve after all. The trio is
finally forced to face some difficult truths when Pringle is ordered to keep
seeing Erika in order to bring her notoriously jealous ex-boyfriend out of
hiding, and Phoebe realizes she is not the only woman in Pringle’s life.

One of the most notable aspects of A Foreign Affair is the way that it captures the atmosphere of post-war Berlin. Wilder reportedly first formed the idea for the film after serving in
Germany in World War II. He then went about conducting research by interviewing
both soldiers and locals regarding life in a now divided Germany. One interview
in particular inspired him to take a closer look at the local perspective when a
woman expressed elation that allied soldiers had arrived to fix the gas in her
building. Wilder was shocked when the woman informed him that she was glad to
have the gas, not for a shower or meal as he had assumed, but so that she could
commit suicide. After compiling various eyewitness accounts, Wilder realized
that he had material for far more than a typical romantic comedy on his hands.

Cat fight!

Wilder’s first choice to play sexy singer Erika was
Marlene Dietrich. He soon realized that casting would be no easy task, however,
after she flatly refused the part. As a native Berliner, Dietrich had been careful to avoid any war
related films in order to prevent being associated with Nazi Germany, which she vehemently opposed. Wilder was eventually able to win the star over by
playing to her infamous vanity when he asked her to watch the screen tests of
several other actresses auditioning for the part. After watching her critique
the other women’s performances, Wilder said “Marlene, only you could play this
part”, Dietrich could not resist agreeing with him and accepted the role on the
spot. Wilder came close to regretting his decision, however, when Dietrich
and Arthur clashed on the set after Arthur accused Dietrich of sabotaging her
close ups. Tensions eventually got so high during filming that Wilder
reportedly complained, “I have one dame who’s afraid to look at herself in a
mirror and another one who won’t stop looking!”.

Despite the perfect sense of time and place that Wilder
and his script created, the film would not have been nearly as engaging without
the superb work of its cast. Arthur portrays the insecurity beneath Phoebe’s professional
exterior in a way that demonstrates the difficulties that women in the
political arena faced, and continue to face. She also makes the congresswoman’s
transformation comical without resorting to ugly duckling stereotypes. Lund
makes his GI rogue likable enough that audiences can understand his attracting
two leading ladies, but imbues him with enough of a cynical edge to keep him
realistic. Dietrich steals the film with her vampish portrayal of world weary
Erika. In this film, she uses plenty of the wiles she became famous for in the
thirties and utilizes them to highlight, rather than undermine her
character’s complexity. Her performances of three songs written for the film provide enough sex
appeal and scathing humor to show the duality of both her femme fatale turned
survivor, and the film as a whole.

A Foreign Affair is a truly unique
film that successfully mixes politics, romance, and cynicism to expert comic
effect. Through its use of black comedy, the film reveals the aftermath of war
and its effects on people from both sides. Despite its serious subject matter,
the film never succumbs to complete cynicism and maintains a sense of optimism
throughout. The rollicking antics of the stars keep viewers on their toes while
reminding us of the harsh reality lurking beneath the surface. So, pull up a chair, take in the local culture, and enjoy a not so discreet affair that you won't soon forget.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

I am very excited to
write this review because I found this film to be very enjoyable. This film has an awesome setting and more
remarkable characters than I can count.
It’s like “Zombieland” meets Vampires!
All right, let’s not waste any more of your time. Here is why you should watch the movie “Stake
Land”.

So “Stake Land” is set in the not
too distant future and its central theme revolves around the survival of a Vampire
Apocalypse. Our story is told in
narration form by our protagonist—a young boy named Martin. Martin’s family was slaughtered by vampire’s
right before his eyes and if it wasn’t for a stranger—simply known as
“Mister”—who just happened to be passing by Martin would be dead as well. Mister takes the orphan Martin under his wing
and acts as his Guardian/Mentor. Mister begins
teaching and training Martin in the art of vampire slaying. Martin and Mister’s plan is to eventually
leave South Carolina and head up North to a place called “New Eden”; where
rumor is that there are no vampires in New Eden because they are incapable of
surviving in the cold climates because they are Cold Blooded. However, vampires aren’t the only dangers
that Martin and Mister will face on their journey. In a world where there is absolute chaos and
the only law is those who take the law into their own hands Mister must teach
Martin everything he knows or the two of them stand absolutely no chance at
survival.

See it! See it! See It!

I absolutely love the
characters in this film. My favorite
character, hands down, is Martin. When
the film starts off Martin is this young, naïve, good ol’ boy whose family is tragically massacred by a hungry
vampire. That tragic event led to Martin
developing a bleak outlook on life. He
doesn’t whine, he doesn’t cry, he has just become numb to everything. He yearns for a simple life where no one and
nothing can bother him. Throughout the film Martin has to lots of things he
doesn’t want to do, but he does them because he is helpful and loyal to Mister
and over the course of the film we see Martin evolve from a quiet lost boy to
tough self-reliant man. Actor Connor
Paolo was just fantastic in this role.
The role of Martin, I think, was a very difficult one to play, because
he had to show how he evolved and changed over the course of the film. Starting at one spectrum an ending at the
other (without “jumping the shark”) is quite a feat for any actor to do in just
one film. It’s not like Paolo had 2-3
films to stretch and develop his character.
He did it just one.

Mister get's ready to battle some vamps!

My
other favorite character in the film is Mister.
Mister is a lot like Tallahassee in “Zombieland” except without the
humor, but that isn’t to say that he doesn’t do some funny things in the film. He’s tough, but he’s not mean. He’s a man who knows to keep his emotions out
of his decision making because he knows that letting his emotions get the best
of him could get him killed. This is a
term that gets tossed around in the film, but Mister is a total “Bad Ass”
character. Whenever Mister and Martin
enter a new town/area and are asked for I.D. he hands the person a pouch filled
with vampire fangs; trophies he has taken from each vampire he staked. How cool is that? In another scene he comes across two men
raping a nun and he kills them both without any hesitation and very little
effort, so Bonus Points to Mister. He is
played by unknown actor Nick Damici, who also wrote co-wrote the script with
the film’s director Jim Mickle.

Mister's Character "Prequel" Made before the films release

Jebediah Loven is a great villain in this film!

This
film has a great villain as well, and I’m not talking about the vampires—though
they are pretty cool looking. The bad
guy in “Stake Land” is a man named Jebediah Loven. Loven is the leader of a Cult known as “The
Brotherhood” and he believes the vampire plague was the work of God, and he
believes that God sent him the vampires for him to control and use to “Do the
Lord’s Work”. Loven believes that he
knows the only key to controlling the vampires and he acts with great hostility
towards anyone who does not want to join the Brotherhood. He even goes so far as to have vampires
dropped out of helicopters on neutral towns as a way to spread the plague and
conquer new areas. Unlike religious
leaders in other apocalyptic films that claim they’re doing the Lords work, but have ulterior motives,
Loven seems very sincere in his beliefs that he was chosen by God to rule and
rebuild the Earth, and that God sent the Vampires for him to control and use as
Instruments of God to get people to join his cult.

Jebediah Loven's character "prequel" released prior to films release

Very rarely to see unknown writers and
directors hit a home run in with their first films, and the team of Nick Damici
and Jim Mickle did just that. With a
list of strong, interesting, and heroic characters, great villains (both Human
and undead), and story that is fairly reminiscent of two successful Hollywood
films, “Stake Land” is just an all around awesome movie. I would recommend this film to anyone. I am so glad that I watched this film. I really can’t say enough great things about
it.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

“You know how to whistle, don’t you?” Lauren Bacall
asked as she captured the attention of both co-star Humphrey Bogart and
audiences across America in her screen debut in To Have and Have Not. With her sultry stare, smoky voice, and
insolent wit Bacall proved to be an ideal match for legendary tough guy Bogart
both on and off screen. The interaction between the film’s stars elevated the story
beyond its beginnings as a war time melodrama toa more relatable tale of ordinary people coping with extraordinary
circumstances. To Have and Have Not proved
to be a critical and commercial success through its combination of intrigue,
humor, and camaraderie. The film also became the stuff of Hollywood legend by launching
the career of then nineteen year old Bacall and her famous romance with Bogart.

The film begins as Bogart’s Captain Harry Morgan is renting
out his boat in occupied Martinique to American tourist Mr. Johnson (Walter
Sande). As they reach shore, Morgan requests payment for his services, but
Johnson hesitates before promising to pay Morgan in the morning. Morgan begrudgingly
agrees to wait for his payment and accompanies Johnson back to his hotel. Once
at the hotel, Morgan is approached by proprietor and Free French resistance
fighter Gerard, better known as Frenchy (Marcel Dalio). Frenchy begs Morgan to
let his fellow resistance fighters use Morgan’s boat to transport a pair of
fugitives on the run from the Nazis. Despite Frenchy’s pleas and offers of ample
compensation, Morgan flatly refuses saying it would be too much of a risk. While
trying to avoid Frenchy and his associates, Morgan befriends runaway and
pickpocket Marie “Slim” Browning after catching her stealing Johnson’s wallet. Before
Morgan can collect his money, however, a drive by shooting occurs at the hotel
and both he and Slim are taken in for questioning by the local authorities.
After the Vichy controlled police rough up Slim during her interrogation,
Morgan decides to take action and agrees to rent his boat to the resistance
free of charge. The plot then moves into several twists and turns as Morgan
tries to outsmart the Nazis while fighting his growing attraction to Slim. As
in Casablanca, the ultimate conflict
at the core of To Have and Have Not
is the struggle within Bogart’s world weary cynic between his desire for the
safety of neutrality and his need to risk it all for the greater good.

Despite its similarities to other Warner Brothers'
pictures of the era, To Have and Have Not
actually has an extensive literary pedigree. The concept for the film was
first conceived when director Howard Hawks boasted to famed writer Ernest
Hemingway that he could make any book into a hit film. Hawks then called his
own bluff and made a bet with Hemingway that he could make a smash hit out of
Hemingway’s ‘worst novel’; To Have and
Have Not. Hawks then enlisted the help of screenwriter Jules Furthman and
literary icon William Faulkner to adapt the novel into a workable script. Although
Hawks technically won the bet, he was only able to do so by drastically
changing the plot to capitalize on war time patriotism, and extensively
borrowing from Warner Brothers’ earlier hit, Casablanca.
The combination of plot devices, international locales, and cast members carried
over from Casablanca initially make To Have and Have Not appear to be Casablanca-lite. Upon closer
observation, however, it becomes apparent that the film has its own unique
flavor and is capable of standing upon its own merits.

﻿

Who's taking care of who?!

One of the biggest draws of the film is the
interaction between its ensemble cast. Each scene between Bogart and Bacall
sizzles with sensuality in a way that few post-Hay’s Code films could. The most
striking aspect of their scenes is the way in which the characters play off of
each other and build upon their mutual understanding. The scenes between Morgan
and Slim were in fact so convincing that Hawks was forced to rewrite the script
so that Morgan could have a happy ending with the brassy thief, rather than the
originally planned bittersweet romance with a French resistance fighter. After
watching the crackling chemistry between Bogart and Bacall, it is little wonder
that the studio went on to cast the pair in three more collaborations.

The interaction between Bogart’s cool cynic and the
colorful characters that he encounters are almost as engaging as those between
him and Bacall. Walter Brennan’s performance as Morgan’s alcoholic first mate,
Eddy, is by turns both humorous and heartfelt. Throughout the film, Eddy tags
along on Morgan’s adventures in an effort to look out for his friend, all the
while unaware that he’s the one who requires looking after. Brennan’s
portrayal of the bumbling Eddy helps make the friendship between Eddy and
Morgan believable, which in turn highlights Morgan’s hidden softer side.
Similarly, Dolores Moran’s performance as the willful resistance member Madame
De Bursac provides an excellent counterpoint to Morgan and Slim’s world weary
skepticism. In keeping with the Casablanca tradition, Hoagey Carmichael’s bluesy piano player
provides extra zest with musical and comic relief. Even the villains have their moments to shine, particularly Dan
Seymour in his sarcastic portrayal of Vichy official Captain Renard.

To
Have and Have Not was a crucial turning point in the lives
of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Prior to being cast as Slim, Bacall had
worked as a model and actress in minor theatrical roles. When one of Bacall’s
modeling photos appeared in an issue of Harper’s Bazaar, Hawks’ wife took
notice and convinced him to arrange a screen test. Despite her lack of film
experience, Bacall won the role which would become the defining moment of her
career. She soon attracted the attentions of both her director and co-star,
despite the fact that both men were already married. Tensions rose on the set
as Bacall spurned Hawks’ advances and eventually began a romance with Bogart,
who was separated from his third wife, actress Mayo Methot. Hawks retaliated by
embarking upon an affair with Moran, while Bogart and Bacall pursued what would
become one of the most storied relationships in Hollywood. The two were married
in 1945, and the marriage lasted until his death of esophageal cancer in 1957.
The pair would go on to star in three more pictures together including Hawks’ classic
detective noir The Big Sleep.

To
Have and Have Not is a film that remains as entertaining today
as on the day of its release in 1944. The film’s combination of excellent performances,
interesting characters, and razor sharp dialogue make it a must see for fans of
intrigue and old fashioned adventure. For many, there never was and never will
be an on screen pairing quite as steamy as that of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren
Bacall, regardless of production code restrictions. To top it all off, the
film even includes an unforgettable lesson in how to whistle.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Oh H.P. Lovecraft, it
saddens me greatly that the films adapted from your stories have never quite
reached their full potential.
Lovecraft’s “Lovecraftian Horror” has influenced and inspired many great
writers and people in the film industry such as Stephen King, John Carpenter,
and Sam Raimi. So why is it that people
can be inspired by Lovecraft and use his ideas for their own works, but they
can’t quite adapt Lovecraft’s own works into successful films? The films adapted from the literary works of
H.P. Lovecraft are of the same caliber of the Claudio Fragasso’s B-Horror
classic “Troll 2” and some of the films, adapted from his stories, make Stephen
King Film adaptations look like freaking Alfred Hitchcock! With that being said, I’ve decided to review
the most (fan) popular film adapted
from a work of Lovecraft, 1985’s “Re-Animator”.

Hey is that Mountain Dew in that syringe?

“Re-Animator”
was adapted from a series of short stories by H.P. Lovecraft called Herbert
West—Reanimator, and it is the story of a young medical student, named
Herbert West, who helps discover a miracle serum (that strangely enough looks
like Mountain Dew) that can bring corpses back from the dead. West believes he has made the medical
discovery of a lifetime, but it is all too apparent that the poor unfortunate
people he’s brought back from the dead are not the same as they were before and
chaos and destruction reign in a world where the formerly living can walk
again.

Author H.P. Lovecraft

First
of all I would like to say is Bravo, Mr. Lovecraft. You wrote a Horror spoof decades before those
lousy producers who wrote the “Scary Movie” films did. I’m not being sarcastic. It is very clear to see Lovecraft drew
inspiration from great Gothic works of literature, such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,
and I even saw some references to Bram Stoker’s Dracula in the
film. Not only was Lovecraft’s work
inspired by others, but his story itself went on to inspire others. Even though the un-dead characters in the film in the story don’t have an official
monster name, it appears to be the first clear representation of a
“zombie-monster” in literature. That’s a
full ten years before the release of the first Zombie Horror film “White
Zombie” (1932).

Actor Jeffrey Combs is Dr. Herbert West in "Re-Animator"

So
how was the film? It’s was really bad,
but bad in the good way. I think the
same way that many people will enjoy this film the way that they would enjoy
films such as “Troll 2” or “Plan 9 from Outerspace”. It’s a cheesy over-the-top Hollywood produced
piece of crap that screams 1980’s. Actor
Jeffery Combs, who plays Herbert West, over-acts so much in this film that it
is impossible to not laugh at his performance.
For most of the film he sounds like Christopher Walken trying to
impersonate Professor Snape. Not only
that, but in my opinion, he reminds me a lot of Jeffrey Dahmer, which should
make his character a lot scarier, but it just doesn’t. I say that because, Combs character looks
like Dahmer, he kills a cat to perform and experiment
on it, and the way he believes in his experiments—despite constant failure—is
very similar to that of Jeffery Dahmer.
However, when compared to Jeremy Renner’s portrayal of Jeffrey Dahmer in
the 2002 film “Dahmer”, Combs is just laughable!

Hey. How's it going?

This film also has a lot of gross out horror and
features Combs character and the other actors in the film butchering and
mutilating nude re-animated corpses. It
is pathetically campy, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Did this film do H.P. Lovecraft any
justice? Absolutely not, but you know
what, I think if they ever decided to re-make this film and set it in the
time-period, in which Lovecraft wrote it, and not set in modern times it could
be a really great Gothic/Horror Themed film, instead of just being a laughably
good and violent film that the 1980’s made and left behind.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Film and cinema has
been around for over one-hundred years, and in that time Hollywood studios have
pretty much run out of creative ways to kill people in their films. We’ve seen guns, explosives, chainsaws,
knives, swords, hands, animals, everyday objects, and Odin knows what else used
to kill people in films, but cinema still has produced some creative kill. This list is here to name My Personal 5
Favorite Movie Kill. Now just to clarify this isn’t the “5 BEST Movie Kills of
All-Time” these are all my Personal Picks, so I’ know I’m probably going to
leave off some obvious movie kills on this list, but please don’t tell me that
I forgot about this movie kill or that movie kill, because these are my
personal favorites. Thanks and Enjoy!

#5- Curb Stomping (American
History X)

When I was in High
School “American History X” was my favorite film, and one of the best aspects
of the film is from the opening scene.
For those of you who haven’t seen it yet, “American History X” is the
story of a young Neo-Nazi named Danny Vinyard—played by Terminator 2 star Edward Furlong—and he is forced by his high school
principal to write an essay on his brother Derek’s imprisonment for a racially
motivated murder. Years ago Danny was
woken up in the middle of the night after hearing a group of young gang-bangers
trying to break in and steal his older brother’s truck. When Danny informs his older brother
Derek—played by actor Edward Norton—he goes into a homicidal rampage and shoots
one of the thugs point blank killing him instantly. Derek manages to shoot another one of the
gang-bangers in the leg leaving him immobile.
In a racially motivated rage, Derek drags the injured gang-banger to the
sidewalk and tells him to bite down on the sidewalk. He then stomps at the back of the thug’s
skull; killing him. What else is there
to say about this kill, other than “Say Good
night!”.

#4- Dragged to Hell (Drag
Me to Hell)

This one comes from a
Horror film that I feel is definitely under appreciated. I mean it’s a pretty scary premise: you piss
off or “shame” a gypsy and they put a curse on you that causes all of these
horrible things to happen to you, and then at the end of it all you get dragged
straight to hell. Personally I felt the
opening scene where the young boy got dragged to hell was more scary, then when
Christine got dragged to hell, but either way it’s looks freaky as all hell to
see someone you care about get dragged to hell, and there’s nothing much you
can do.

#3- “Dogs get put down” (The
Watchmen)

Love it!

So in this kill Walter
Kovacs (aka Rorschach) is telling a therapist about the time he caught a
kidnapper who raped and murdered a girl, and then fed her remains to his dogs. Rorschach kills the man’s dogs and has him in
the corner. The man admits he killed the girl and begs Rorschach to take him to
prison, but Rorschach doesn’t feel that will be necessary. He looks the sobbing criminal in the eye and
tells him “Men get arrested; dog’s get put down”, and then he proceeds to hack
the man’s face with a large butcher’s knife.
This is how we learned of Rorschach changing over from a vigilante crime
fighter to a super hero with a never ending quest for blood and vengeance.

#2- Death by typewriter (Repo
Men)

One of these things is not like the other.One of these things is a total rip off!!!!!!

Let me just start off
by saying that “Repo Men” is not a good movie.
It is a complete rip off of Terrance Zdunich’s “Repo: the Genetic Opera”
and to be honest it doesn’t even deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence
as “Repo: the Genetic Opera”. So why did
I put this kill so high up on my list?
Because it has probably the funniest death I’ve ever seen on film (and
probably the films only redeemable part).
So Jude Law’s character and this woman are being chased by two Repo Men
through an abandoned building when one of the Repo Men is about to shoot one of
them, when a type writer comes flying out of know where and squishes his
head. When I saw this scene for the
first time I laughed hysterically for almost five minutes, I found it to be
that funny. This film may be a total
rip-off of another—much better—film, but it still gets my vote for having the
funniest kill of all-time.

#1- The Glory Hole (Hobo
with a Shotgun)

The Lamb being led to the slaughter!

How awesome is “Hobo
with a Shotgun”? I mean you’ve got
Rutger Hauer playing a hobo who goes around with a shotgun, righting wrongs in
a corrupt town run by a ruthless crime boss known as “The Drake”. This film doesn’t just have one creative
kill, it has many! You’ve got a guy
getting his head crushed between two bumper-cars, you’ve got a guy getting cut
to shreds by a baseball bat covered in razor blades, you’ve got a school bus
full of kids being torched by flame thrower, you’ve got a guy getting his d!ck
blown off with a shotgun. Not to mention
the bad-a$$-ness that is “The Plague”, but I think the most iconic kill from
“Hobo with a Shotgun” has got to be The
Glory Hole; a public execution that requires a person to have a hinged man
hole cover placed around their neck and be dropped into an empty sewer
hole. The more time you spend in the
glory hole the less blood circulation that travels to the rest of your
body. Then after all that pain and
anguish you have a barbed wire noose placed over your head and tied to the
bumper of a car, as it the driver slams the accelerator and decapitates your
head from the rest of your body. This is
a creative kill that strike fear into all that see it. This film is more than deserving of holding
the title of “Most Creative Kill(s) in Film”.